Hornby Class 423 4-VEP

[Bouncy Bouncy]

 

Talking of convincing arguments, I really can't ignore the screaming contradiction in those two passages...if they're selling that well, why wouldnt they do further models?

-

I appreciate this is a very long thread but - as ever in such cases - I do have to wonder if the more recent entrants have fully digested its earlier content

 

The negativity that is being expressed in this thread? Afterall, those who shout the loudest are generally those that are heard the most. All I see reading this is that the 4VEP is a horridly inaccurate model "and should be returned".

 

And for the record, i've been watching this thread with interest since the pre-production samples and the measurements, and initial photos where someone sawed the front off a blue 4VEP. It's only now, where the negativity is starting to become unjust, and for someone like Venator who has simply explained his experiences of his model to be shot down with a list of "FACT x, FACY y, FACT z", which can appear very aggressive.

 

 

All I will say now is that I think the comment "this is turning into a VEP is poo" is wholly unnecesary, rather infantile and most importantly, simply not true.

 

Overall I think "we" on the unhappy side of the spectrum have been remarkably restrained in our responses.

 

I have not yet seen any posts saying what is good about the 4VEP. Just inaccuracies and statements telling people not to buy. By all means, please do proove me wrong, however I have yet to read a remotley complimentary post within this topic that has been accepted by the remainder of the posters in here.

 

I'm going to end this here, as it's clear any contribution I attempt to make is deemed unwanted or unnesseccary, and I'll definatley be thinking twice before questioning negativity on here...

[S.A.C Martin]

I despair. Stating facts is now suddenly aggression. More and more I feel pilloried for having a negative opinion on this model. By all means, post positive things about the model. Feel free. But back up the positive points with evidence. That's all I ask.

 

 

[spenc]

hi all

i had a nse 4vep on order i was one day of from getting mine.but i was glad i read the problems on this post. I all so went to my local model shop and looked

at a blue one NOBODY told me not buy one .what i seen of the model made my mind up not to buy one.I am glad you members are here.

if they sort the problems out.I will buy one

steve

[metadyneman]

Come on chaps lets be sensible here.. this isn't facebook or a slanging match. There are some valid points being made which are being lost in silly statements that bear no relation to the thread so please lets keep to the subject in hand. There are positives that can be found with the VEP and they have been made, there are negatives too and they may or may not outweigh the positives but this thread is most certainly not a slag off of the VEP nor should it be. The ultimate choice is with the purchaser. I have said despite it's faults, I am likely to buy another one because none of the faults are terminal!

Please lets keep the argument on topic and civil!

[10800]

someone like Venator who has simply explained his experiences of his model to be shot down with a list of "FACT x, FACY y, FACT z", which can appear very aggressive.

 

Venator originally said:

 

really only want something that looks vaguley like the real thing. I'm not bothered if the front end is a couple of mm too wide or narrow, nor am I bothered by slightly innacurate detailing or colours. Lots of the issues raised here I don't think the "ordinary" modeller like myself are actually too bothered about.

 

OK, so he isn't 'bothered' about details that enhance it from only looking 'vaguely' like the real thing. Nothing wrong with that viewpoint, I'm pleased that he's satisfied with it. But many people want more than 'vaguely like the real thing', can reasonably have expected a higher quality model than that which appeared, and have stated very clearly and factually what those detail areas are.

 

If others want to sing its praises, backed up with reasoning, let's see it. But please, let's have some objectivity with it.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Regarding the gangway issue, That would be easily solved by Hornby issuing a sprue of parts where the gangway is moulded correctly so a new door basically masks the old one. I finally got mine out and had a look at it but I wasn't able to run it much as I only had access to an end to end layout so I couldn't test it round any 2nd radius curves. Maybe I should head to Gaugemaster and get some settrack to make a running in oval. Then I'll be able to post my thoughts on here properly .

[Pennine MC]

 

PennineMC: If you had ready my first post you would know that I have been following this forum since the beginning of the thread.

 

I didnt say you hadnt read it, I expressed doubt that you'd fully absorbed what had been said. As one example, you say that the traction tyre issue is based simply on dislike; it isnt. More than one post asserts that the tyres, along with the inside bearings, have an adverse effect on smooth running and trackholding

 

 

The negativity that is being expressed in this thread? Afterall, those who shout the loudest are generally those that are heard the most. .

 

I dont see how anybody can 'shout loudest' on the Internet, in my experience those who claim to be 'shouted down' are simply finding themselves outmanouevred by better-reasoned arguments. I dont want to make this too personal but your own entry to the thread was pretty forthright, I dont think you can really complain when people re-assert themselves in return.

 

All I see reading this is that the 4VEP is a horridly inaccurate model "and should be returned"

 

And again, I'm afraid you havent read it properly, if that's your considered summary of the matter. Again as an example, there's a perceptible feeling that the principal concern is the model's running, not so much its appearance.

 

 

But it is through discussions such as these that others are able to learn, be kept informed and perhaps the manufacturers understand why their efforts (not to mention a large amount of investment capital) have not, in the opinion of a fair number of us here, brought forth what had been hoped for.

 

 

Quite so Rick, it's about having an informed choice and that's a principle I strongly believe in. If a potential buyer is presented with the maximum of info, with findings like those set out here, he can at least make up his own mind how much of an issue *he personally* feels they are. With all due respect to Venator, that potential buyer learns little from a post saying 'my standards are not that high, but I like it'

 

I despair. Stating facts is now suddenly aggression. More and more I feel pilloried for having a negative opinion on this model. By all means, post positive things about the model. Feel free. But back up the positive points with evidence. That's all I ask.

 

I wouldnt worry too much Simon. The regulars here know you're not a habitual manufacturer-basher, I for one can sense your frustration with this model and you've kept faith with it longer than I would have.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Pennine MC

[steveb860]

I am not a professional modeller .

 

I appreciate this has been covered earlier, but there are people on here and others who reguarly peddle their **weathered** items on ebay to make money. I wouldn't call them professional either. In fact I am often hard pushed to call their efforts amateurish but they make money !! However I digress. Back to the modelling.....

 

Steve

[Bernard Lamb]

I have absolutely no interest in this model.

However I have a general interest in other items that Hornby produce.

Can one of those people who are in the know comfirm or contradict how I am reading the situation.

The odd errors on the front are no worse than those that occur on other models made by Hornby and other manufacturers.

Unfortunate, but it will always happen given the process. Given the general recent improvement this unit is a step in the wrong direction.

The references to the drive mech with clip in wheels and traction tyres does give me cause for concern. As do the many comments re bad running.

How bad is the mech?

Is it worse than the updated ex Lima 101?

Is it realy putting the clock back 30 years?

The internal partition does seem to be a major retrograde step. To me this alone renders the model unacceptable.

After recent superb coaches is it a deliberate move by Hornby to see how cheap a product they can make and get away with in the current markt place?

If the last remark is near the truth then Hornby deserve all the bad comments posted here.

Is this the first of the "cheap toys"?

 

Bernard

[RFS]

If the Hornby VEP was built to the same standards as the Bachmann CEP and EPB then I'm sure they'd sell like hot cakes. For example, a motor bogie of equivalent quality to Bachmann's (mounted at the brake end rather than in the passenger saloon), proper corridor partitiions for the first-class sections, proper trailing wheels (ie pin-point axles) and a front end that is just as convincing as the Bachmann models is all I would ask for.

[Oldddudders]

Having - in common with many others - praised the Hornby Maunsells, and bought rather a lot as noted above, it is interesting that while the bogie vehicles have pinpoint bearings and will run away on the slightest slope, the Vans C do not. They have inside bearings in that the axles sit in sloppy plastic tubes, and have a much higher degree of drag. Do I infer that this inferior method was copied for the VEP, despite them being bogied?

[spamcan61]

 

After recent superb coaches is it a deliberate move by Hornby to see how cheap a product they can make and get away with in the current markt place?

If the last remark is near the truth then Hornby deserve all the bad comments posted here.

Is this the first of the "cheap toys"?

 

Bernard

 

I did wonder about this somewhere back in this vast thread, not really sure if this is the shape of things to come (along with the more expensive of the Tornados - not Railroad but not super detail either), or Hornby were trying out a new subcontractor, who put the Z team not the A team on the job. I too could live with the detail errors, but not the 1960s style inside bearings.

[Gwiwer]

Or do we perhaps infer that two quite different design teams are at work and are not on the same page?

 

The issue of cost remains significant. Even before the Vep was released there were comments comparing the listed price unfavourably against the Cep. True the Vep is a couple f years later and costs are rising but if it had then appeared and been to anything like the standard set by Bachmann then the cost might have been a lesser issue.

 

I foresee the same problem arising with the Gresley buffets. While R&D costs must be covered these could be seen as "just a buffet car" by many an unknowing purchaser in the same way that the Vep is "just a train" and all steam engines are called Thomas. Scoff if you wish but we are the cognoscenti of the model railway world. The great majority of those who purchase Hornby models would be closer to the train-set club. That does not bode well for sales of models such as the Gresley buffets (roughly double to price of a Mk1 RMB and therefore totally unattractive price-wise to Joe Public) and I still hold concerns for the Brighton Belle.

 

Hornby has been quoted as suggesting they wish to pitch at the train-set market place. That's fine and I wish them good luck if they go that way but please don't issue statements which suggest the "Vep will be a definitive model" nor price the Brighton Belle at a level not previously seen in RtR models. If they are designed and built to Railroad standards as the Vep appears to be) then market and price them as such. Please.

[spamcan61]

Or do we perhaps infer that two quite different design teams are at work and are not on the same page?

 

 

That is my suspicion, given their publicly stated aim to increase their supplier base, their definition of 'supplier' might well include the design phase.

[spamcan61]

 

Hornby has been quoted as suggesting they wish to pitch at the train-set market place. That's fine and I wish them good luck if they go that way but please don't issue statements which suggest the "Vep will be a definitive model" nor price the Brighton Belle at a level not previously seen in RtR models. If they are designed and built to Railroad standards as the Vep appears to be) then market and price them as such. Please.

 

I think we're merging back into the "Hornby's future is cheap toys" thread at this point. Their actual statement was:-

 

"In July we expect first deliveries of our Tornado locomotive, based on the new steam locomotive of the same name currently operating on the UK network. Our model is based on completely new tooling and is built to a high standard of authenticity whilst achieving a mass market price point. We expect this introduction to create a new market sector which is attuned to the more challenging economic conditions likely to be prevalent for some time to come."

 

That doesn't really equate with a pitch at the train set market IMHO, unless one regards the non Railroad Tornado as 'train set' quality.; of course overall Hornby always have and will continue to pitch much product at the trains set market. Not sure where the VEP is pitched, we shall see if it lands in the bargain bins in short order no doubt.

Edited October 20, 2011 by spamcan61

[brushman47544]

Or maybe they are as bothered but don't feel the need to add to or duplicate what has already been said?

I have certainly been followed this thread with interest. I had been waiting for a Blue/Grey version, but the problems that have been mentioned have, at this stage, put me off buying and unless Hornby addresses the build and running issues so clearly expressed by SAC Martin I am unlikely to buy one in the future. Personally, I can live with some of the inaccuracies that do not make the model look wrong, so bogie issues for example I could accept but not the poorly proportioned front end. Each of us will have different "tolerance" levels in this respect.

 

Since Hornby has raised its game with so many other models recently, the VEP is certainly a disappointment.

 

Which begs the question, 'Are Hornby listening ?'

 

How many times did Bachmann Europe go back to the drawing board / toolroom ?, after many observational comments / complaints, before they were perceived, by the majority of their Cl.37 customers, to have got the thing right. Was it two or three times?.

l would imagine this improvement boosted the sales of said model considerably.

 

Somehow, l don't see Hornby doing this.

You're probably spot on about the "majority" for the Bachmann Class 37. But funnily enough in my case it's the large gap between the sander filler cap and grills on the bonnet side that really puts me off the latest unrefurbished version, whereas the incorrect tumblehome on the earlier version was somehow more acceptable. It's what hits you as wrong when you first look at a model that makes or breaks it for me.

 

But that aside, it is the difference in approach to correcting perceived errors that is disappointing. As you say, Bachmann often makes changes to tooling to improve a model, whereas Hornby does not generally do so. Presumably it has decided that the costs would outweigh any additional sales. After all, Hornby can still shift large numbers of Mk1 coaches even though Bachmann's version is cheaper and more accurate.

[Gwiwer]

Hornby trades on a name. They can shift large volumes of some items (let's say Mk1 passenger coaches as maybe 4 - 6 are required per typical model train) but not of everything. Only one Vep is required for many trains; relatively few of us have layouts able to accommodate 8-car (or longer) trains.

 

I can live with a modest degree of what could be termed misrepresentation. The "baseball cap" of the Heljan Westerns for example or the generic nature of the Mainline / Bachmann class 42 which specifically represents probably none of the type. I can make cosmetic alterations to cover some of those issues. I cannot make "cosmetic" alterations if a unit is designed so poorly that it does not run as intended reliably. I can live with reversed tommy-bars and even skinny horns but when all the weaknesses are added together and the experience of trusted modellers (not only on this forum) is significantly negative then there is clearly a problem to be addressed.

 

In my case the only problem is that Hornby and a retailer will not be benefitting from my bank account. From the business aspect how many retailers have had how many Veps returned as "defective" or "unfit for purpose"? And what degree of commercial damage might this do to Hornby and their associated manufacturers?

[S.A.C Martin]

Having - in common with many others - praised the Hornby Maunsells, and bought rather a lot as noted above, it is interesting that while the bogie vehicles have pinpoint bearings and will run away on the slightest slope, the Vans C do not. They have inside bearings in that the axles sit in sloppy plastic tubes, and have a much higher degree of drag. Do I infer that this inferior method was copied for the VEP, despite them being bogied?

 

Not quite. There are no bearings as such. The wheelsets are simple, normal metal axle wheel sets. They "clip" into the underside of the bogie into an axle shaped channel. They remain clipped due to the shape of the channel. The axles therefore rotate onto bare plastic, causing much friction. I have oiled mine and found no visible improvement to its running.

[S.A.C Martin]

 

How bad is the mech?

Is it worse than the updated ex Lima 101?

 

 

I can't comment on the mech of the 101 as haven't owned one, but the running is horrendous on the VEP on a curve or straight.

 

The motor stutters, the unit slows down and speeds up without prompting, and the traction tyres on mine have both failed (and have been replaced). The replacement tyres are not showing the same signs of damage as the first pair.

 

The amount of friction the model is required to overcome, plus the motor's lack of power make for a very jerky unit overall. This has not improved with over 12 hours of running in, in the weeks since I received the model.

[10800]

The wheelsets are simple, normal metal axle wheel sets. They "clip" into the underside of the bogie into an axle shaped channel. They remain clipped due to the shape of the channel. The axles therefore rotate onto bare plastic, causing much friction. I have oiled mine and found no visible improvement to its running.

 

In this day and age that is outrageous. If I had one of these, even in 00 I would be replacing the wheelsets and this 'channel' with proper pinpoints on bearings in the bogie sideframes, or even replacing the bogies completely.

[S.A.C Martin]

I fully intend to replace all the bogies or "bash" the rather pleasing mouldings into something better when time and money allow.

 

The bogies, if they had been pin point axles like every other mk1 derived coach in their range, would have been perfect. Aside from the trailing bogies being wrong in guard iron and step placement, the mouldings are crisp and look brilliant when weathered.

 

But that's scant consolation when you see it run so poorly.

[Andy Y]

 

The negativity that is being expressed in this thread? Afterall, those who shout the loudest are generally those that are heard the most. All I see reading this is that the 4VEP is a horridly inaccurate model "and should be returned".

 

And for the record, i've been watching this thread with interest since the pre-production samples and the measurements, and initial photos where someone sawed the front off a blue 4VEP. It's only now, where the negativity is starting to become unjust, and for someone like Venator who has simply explained his experiences of his model to be shot down with a list of "FACT x, FACY y, FACT z", which can appear very aggressive.

 

I have not yet seen any posts saying what is good about the 4VEP. Just inaccuracies and statements telling people not to buy. By all means, please do proove me wrong, however I have yet to read a remotley complimentary post within this topic that has been accepted by the remainder of the posters in here.

 

I'm going to end this here, as it's clear any contribution I attempt to make is deemed unwanted or unnesseccary, and I'll definatley be thinking twice before questioning negativity on here...

 

I missed seeing this one last night but I would like to clearly state that the content of this topic has remained within the forum rules providing objective information, analysis and practical solutions where possible. It is clear that the model is unsatisfactory to a significant number of people. If it meets someone else's more forgiving standards then they are free to buy it; we're not the EMU-police. By your own admission you have no interest in the model and do not appear to have any significant input, at least Venator has given an assessment based on his experiences.

 

It's silly stuff like this where people then run off to other sites moaning and generalising about RMweb members being rivet counters whilst all that's being discussed is specific information.

 

The last sentence reads to me that you'll just stick your fingers in your ears and maintain your opinion. Do bear in mind a similar future discussion may centre around a product that you actually want and the information may be of value to you rather than subject matter to just pass your judgement of others on. In the meantime please just grow a thicker skin.

[metadyneman]

Bernard Lamb asked if the mechaism is the same as the upgraded "Limby" 101. I can confirm that the mechaism - apart from the wheel diameters - is exactly the same a s the "Limby" Class 101, Class 73, Class 121, Class 87, Railroad Virgin HST power car and the GWR "flying banana" railcar , They all share the same basic design. Hornby have really skimped on this aspect of the VEP in my view and we have been palmed off with a really cheap and nasty motor inside what is a reasonably good looking train.It is this aspect which I find most frustrating, disappointing and really quite unacceptable. To be honest, if Hornby had taken a good look at Bachmann's 4-CEP and seen how they have brilliantly engineered a powerful smooth running motor into an EMU instead of producing this cheap effort in their VEP then they might have had a bit more success with the compliments about it even with the slightly wrong looks.

 

As I have more or less said before.. a loco is no good to man nor beast if it doesn't run properly and it is clear from some of the experiences posted on here that it doesn't!

[spamcan61]

 

As I have more or less said before.. a loco is no good to man nor beast if it doesn't run properly and it is clear from some of the experiences posted on here that it doesn't!

 

From a personal point of view I agree entirely, but judging by the thread dealing with Hornby class 31 chassis rot issues, roughly half the buyers of new toy train products leave them in boxes for years. Have to admit that applies to my 'modelling' at this point in time :-/.

[Andy Y]

Bernard Lamb asked if the mechaism is the same as the upgraded "Limby" 101. I can confirm that the mechaism - apart from the wheel diameters - is exactly the same a s the "Limby" Class 101, Class 73, Class 121, Class 87, Railroad Virgin HST power car and the GWR "flying banana" railcar

 

A simple but telling fact, thank you Metadyne.

 

This really does indicate, as others have intimated, that the product has been designed down to the lowest common denominator and priced as high as the market would bear as opposed to designing in what a product actually needs or should have and applying an appropriate margin.